[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Capital improvement ballot issue

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Colleagues - Hi again.  I thought I'd offer some fairly detailed thoughts about this ballot issue as we prepare for our discussion tomorrow night.  From the questions and concerns I raised at our prior meeting I suspect it is fairly obvious that I - rather much to my surprise since I expected and would prefer to support the ballot issue - find myself almost certainly unable to support many of the proposed projects or a tax extension of longer than about three years.

My general concerns are fairly straightforward.  First, given the very significant community needs that are unfunded and the uncertainty of the economy, I don't think it is wise to lock up this key revenue source for more than three years.  Second, while the citizens' committee clearly worked very hard - and we should thank them for that - the process was seriously flawed.  There simply wasn't enough time to get significant community and board input, nor to get a much needed, wider range of proposals from community groups.  And while it's often good to put new people on city committees, in this case their seeming lack of context and history showed itself, as evidenced by the many council questions that should have been handled by the committee, and (at least to me) the committee's very odd ranking of projects (no matter how nice it might be to support certain community groups, they are not more vital than moving fire station #3).  Finally, I think the way we fund some of these projects must be re-thought.  While it's fine for the city to help fund some community groups, there needs to be an ongoing process/competition with clear guidelines and a much more intensive consideration of the costs/benefits, likelihood of success, and relative importance across a much larger context of short and longer-term needs.  And the council needs to explicitly set aside funding each year for general-fund capital projects to handle our ongoing needs; sure, some big-ticket items will likely always need to go to the voters, but general maintenance and smaller-scale items should not.  I don't know what our staff is recommending in this regard for 2018, but I'd suggest an average of at least $2 - $3M/year over the next three years, which could support a number of smaller projects - but would give the next council more time to determine priorities.

Based on these concerns and guidelines, I'd suggest the following projects be considered for funding:

*         Fire station #3 - $13M

*         Radio infrastructure - $6M

*         Library - $3 to $4M

*         Scott Carpenter Pool - $3 to $4M

*         Meals on Wheels - $1.5M

*         Community Cycles - $.5 to $.75M

*         Contingency and Debt service - ~$2M

Here are some more detailed thoughts on the various projects.  I fully understand that this will not be popular (nor, likely, supported by council), but if I find myself unable to support the ballot issue I think it's important that I explain how I reached that unlikely determination.


*         Fire station #3: critically important and almost impossible to fund otherwise.

*         Radio infrastructure: critically important.  Council would almost certainly find a way to fund this regardless and we should really have a general fund capital program that can handle projects like this.  But for now it probably makes sense to add it to the ballot and use our new (I hope) general fund capital fund for several smaller projects.

*         Library - yes, it is time to build a north Boulder branch, even though in my opinion we unfortunately do not have the best location for it.  This branch should be of a size that is similar to the two existing branches, and along with the $2M we already have for this purpose I would think that an additional $3 to $4M would be quite sufficient.  We absolutely should not require that all of these funds (particularly if the ballot issue calls for even more money) be spent solely on a north Boulder branch.  In fact, I don't think that any extra funds should be limited to the northern part of the city regardless.  There is still much work to do on the library master plan, and the next council will need to decide just what the priorities are for a library system that is, of course, undergoing considerable change due to technology and also due to where Boulder's limited growth is occurring.  If we have a 3-year ballot issue, as I am proposing, then it can be the subsequent ballot issue that deals with the recommendations of the new master plan, whose cost and timing just can't be known now.

*         Scott Carpenter Pool: PRAB's highest priority and probably reasonable to consider, although every aspect of the project need not necessarily be done now.  I think that funding for Parks infrastructure also needs another look.  Parks gets a very significant .25 sales tax increment for capital needs, but as we know there are many very large unfunded projects.  Handling one of them now, given the timing of other pool improvements, seems appropriate.

*         Meals on Wheels: well, this is really a human services project, but we of course don't have a good way to fund these types of capital projects.  Given the timing and the stated ability of the organization to raise significant funds, and their long track-record and mission, I think we need to fund this, although there is nothing magical about their exact monetary request.  Needless to say, I think the county should chip in considerably.

*         Community Cycles: I can support this because I consider this too to essentially be a human services project given the great emphasis on providing assistance to low-income people, particularly kids.  Again, the organization is long-standing and has raised considerable funds, although here too there is nothing magical about their exact monetary request.

*         Fourmile Canyon: yes, this should be completed but it seems clear that this can be funded from existing transportation capital budgets and perhaps from some outside grants.  I still don't know if TAB considers this the absolute top unfunded priority for the next 3 - 6 years.  And I still think that we need to find additional ways to fund transportation (hey, what about a head tax?) so that the base revenues can fund projects like these.

*         Civic Area: yes, the city should indeed continue to work on this, but I think that between Parks and the new general fund capital fund it can be covered.  And we really, really need to figure out the east bookend in order to understand how things will tie together, and that will take a while (far too long with far too many delays; decisions simply need to be made).

*         Deferred maintenance: this should come out of a new general fund capital fund, not a ballot issue.

*         Railroad quiet zones: very nice to finish, but OK if it takes a bit longer.  And see my comments regarding transportation funding.

*         Main library restrooms: absolutely, and to be paid for by the remainder from the library funding above and/or the general fund capital fund.

*         Civic area restrooms: maybe nice to have, maybe not.  I think there needs to be a better understanding of how - to be totally blunt here - we will return the civic area to the public and greatly lessen its appeal to transients.  Regardless, the cost of small items like these should be handled by a general fund capital fund.

*         Public art: if this is really to be an ongoing concept it shouldn't be funded by ballot issues.  And as I'll note later, it certainly shouldn't be stuffed into a ballot issue like this one.

*         Growing Gardens: wonderful group, but the amount is far too small to put into a ballot issue and this is just one example of an organization that should "compete" against others in a very different and far, far more open and thoughtful process.  Regardless, the city could clearly contribute some money without it being on this ballot.

*         Studio Arts: again, I think our process for selecting this group was flawed, not because of the organization itself, but because there are simply no guidelines nor was there any real "competition" or consideration of numerous other community needs/desires.  I personally would question the appropriateness of tax money for this particular type of subsidy, but at minimum I would want our residents to weigh in on the concept - again, see my thought below on the various art-related projects.

*         CRC: another fine organization, and I realize that many on council and the community believe that recycling/reuse should be supported almost regardless of the cost/benefit ratio.  But that last time we got some information - at my insistence - it turned out that it was extraordinarily expensive per unit of diversion for CRC to, in fact, divert material that would otherwise not be recycled and to reduce CO2e emissions.  One aspect of this request that might well be worth pursuing is the expansion of electronic recycling, but this seems to me to be at least as much a human-services project as a waste-diversion one, and its relatively smaller cost should come largely from the county's worthy cause and sustainability taxes (not solely or largely from city funding).

*         KGNU: I'm afraid I don't quite see why city taxpayers should subsidize this organization.  To be sure they provide some community services, but their members and listeners came from all over the metro area.

*         BMOCA: I have several concerns here, but the simplest one regards the future of the east bookend.  As we dawdle forever on that project, we've been told repeatedly that we need to keep our options open since we really don't know how things will turn out.  In fact, I agree with that to a large extent.  We need facilities that will "activate" the area throughout the day (and night if possible), and BMOCA simply doesn't get the visitors to do that.  And we will almost certainly need to partner with an entity that will help pay for the development, and the best/necessary use of the existing BMOCA building - not to mention any additional nearby land - simply can't be determined yet, and must not be determined by or unduly influenced by this ballot issue.  So even a smaller upgrade/refurbishment of the existing building is troubling to me, except perhaps for any essential safety items.  Perhaps our residents would like to further subsidize BMOCA, but as with MOB I would think that BMOCA should be able to fund the larger share of acquiring a building/land, and that seems rather unlikely.

*         Art cinema downtown: yep, this would be nice, if it actually could succeed, which is questionable.  But it shouldn't be funded by the taxpayers, given its questionable success, its limited audience, and the fact that the library could handle much of the same services (after the inevitable and essential re-creation of the north wing).  By the way, while it's understandable for us to be more than a little annoyed that the developer is not held responsible for building the theater, it's rather difficult to see how that could have been required.  Perhaps the city could require a developer to build out some specific space for a specific use (or escrow money for it), but that certainly seems like a stretch.  And even if that were done, how could we require that the use be actually implemented and continued; what if it just wasn't financially feasible to operate, even with essentially free infrastructure?  It's no doubt worth pondering how to improve this type of situation, but simplistic solutions, or unjustified anger in this particular case, won't be helpful.

Which brings me to a thought about the arts-related projects, which consist of BMOCA, Studio Arts, public art, and the downtown cinema.  If council really wants to put these on the ballot, they should be part of a separate, coordinated ballot issue so our voters could decide - and then we'd know if there is sufficient public support.  True, not all of these organizations might want to share a ballot issue with each other...but that sure makes more sense than having them share the ballot with the other vastly more important and essential city projects.  By the way, Denver's upcoming capital ballot issue is actually split into seven parts, allowing voters to decide on each component (one is for arts/cultural projects) independently.

In addition, it's just hard to imagine that all of the projects that need significant matching funds will be able to acquire them.  While there are some success stories, and some individual large donations, the track record strongly suggests that raising perhaps $10+M for all of the potential projects will simply not be possible in a three to five-year timespan, if ever.

Finally, there are of course other projects that councilmembers (me included) tossed out at our last discussion.  No doubt some of these are deserving of support.  But the smaller ones could and should be handled by a general fund capital fund, and the larger ones shouldn't be rushed into consideration at the last moment without much if any discussion or analysis - and, if indeed this tax extension is limited to three years then additional projects will not need to wait long for their chances, after, of course, a much more thorough and thoughtful process.

--Matt